IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that validly appointed officials cannot be removed without due process, and that age regulations must be adhered to in public service appointments.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Both these two writ petitions being on an identical cause of action, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The issue is with regard to the appointment of Gaonburah in various lots in the district of Goalpara. While in WP(C)/2395/2023, there are 55 numbers of petitioners, in WP(C)/2546/2023, there are 11 numbers of petitioners.

2. There is a chequered history, including history of writ petitions in these cases. As per the facts projected, there was an exercise to fill up the posts of honorary Gaonburah in the year 2000. After various communications and a recruitment process, the petitioners were appointed in various Lots as honorary Gaonburah sometime in the year 2005. Few of the appointment letters have also been annexed and there is no dispute with such appointments.

3. While discharging their duties, suddenly an order was passed on 16.02.2009 whereby the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled. The order however reflected that such cancellation was pursuant to certain orders passed by this Court in writ proceedings. It is the categorical case of the petitioners that they were not made parties in the said writ proceeding. In the meantime, few of the petitioners had filed WP(C)/1489/2009 in which this Court had passed an order on 06.04.2009 whereby notice was issued and an interim order was passed. This Court has also noted that a review application was filed against the earlier order passed in certain writ appeals arising out of WP(C)/6054/2005. Thereafter, vide an order dated 15.07.2010, the appointments of the petitioners were restored. The review application being Review.Pet./37/2013 by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Division Bench was allowed on 01.03.2013 whereby the order dated 12.11.2017 dismissing the writ appeals was recalled. Further, the writ petition, pursuant to which the cancellation order was made was restored with a direction that the petitioners in that case would file amended writ petition to implead the present petitioners within a period of a month. Since there was certain error in the order dated 01.03.2013, the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed a subsequent order on 29.07.2013 whereby the necessary correction was made pertaining to the number of the first writ petition which was actually WP(C)/6054/2005. The said writ petition had come up for consideration on 09.12.2019 and this Court having noticed that there was no representation and even the amendment, as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 01.03.2013 was not done, the writ petition was dismissed. The present petitioners accordingly continued in their service as honorary Gaonburah. However, it is contended that no remuneration of any kind have been paid to them. The grievance of the petitioners is presently against an advertisement dated 18/20.04.2023 for filling up posts of Gaon Pradhan in 360 Lots in the district of Goalpara. It is this recruitment process and the action to fill up the post of Gaon Pradhan which is the subject matter of challenge.

4. I have heard Shri H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2395/2023 and Shri AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2546/2023. I have also heard Shri TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Shri J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also filed affidavit-in-opposition followed by rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that there is no shortcomings in the eligibility or qualification of the petitioners for being appointed as Gaonburah / Gaon Pradhan. It is submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioners in the year 2005 was after the validly held recruitment process, wherein all the factors including eligibility was taken into consideration. It is submitted that the petitioners were Matriculate which is the minimum requirement and this aspe